Aexia:Is there a particular reason Republicans consider Nancy Pelosi to be "corrupt" or are they just butthurt over the Speaker having been a strong progressive woman?

She is not a Republican. That is all the reason they needed to begin full-throatedly, histrionically vilifying her starting the very minute she was elected House Speaker. Didn't matter who it was, her or someone else; whichever non-Republican is named Speaker or minority leader is going to be the most corrupt, batshiat-insane socialist lib who ever nazied.

BuckTurgidson:Aexia: Is there a particular reason Republicans consider Nancy Pelosi to be "corrupt" or are they just butthurt over the Speaker having been a strong progressive woman?

She is not a Republican. That is all the reason they needed to begin full-throatedly, histrionically vilifying her starting the very minute she was elected House Speaker. Didn't matter who it was, her or someone else; whichever non-Republican is named Speaker or minority leader is going to be the most corrupt, batshiat-insane socialist lib who ever nazied.

Indubitably:BuckTurgidson: Aexia: Is there a particular reason Republicans consider Nancy Pelosi to be "corrupt" or are they just butthurt over the Speaker having been a strong progressive woman?

She is not a Republican. That is all the reason they needed to begin full-throatedly, histrionically vilifying her starting the very minute she was elected House Speaker. Didn't matter who it was, her or someone else; whichever non-Republican is named Speaker or minority leader is going to be the most corrupt, batshiat-insane socialist lib who ever nazied.

PlatinumDragon:Kit Fister: FlashHarry: i've gotta say, this self-immolation by the GOP has been glorious to watch.

I'll state up front that I tend to be pretty centrist in my vies, though i like to think I lean conservative on some things.

That being said, why is it glorious? Why is it at all a good thing for a group that represents a different set of opinions to self destruct? Do we WANT to have any possible counterbalance to people going too far off the liberal end of the scale to be disorganized and in disarray so they cannot offer that balancing weight against the extreme leftists?

You don't like Romney or the extreme right-wing nutjobs. Neither do I. but I still think that some counter to extreme leftist crap is needed: If everyone in congress agreed with one ideal, and that ideal kept pushing further and further left, you'd have no one intervening to even slow the progress down.

Now, again, i hate the ultra-right as much as you seem to, and I hate the ultra left equally. But since common sense and reason is anathema to modern politics, the best we can do is to elect only a bare majority from one side or the other so that neither side can get too crazy with the bullshiat.

You seem to be saying both parties are equally negative. Is there a party you think we should vote for?

/you don't know extreme leftists//you should see our official opposition up here///and from where I sit, they're just moderately left

Both parties ARE equally negative in their own ways. Ideally, who "should" we vote for? The best candidate who is the most sane (this is why I'm grudgingly voting Obama this time around). If we could get enough people to get their heads out of their asses and on the move to get EC votes for a third party and that third party was sane, then I'd go that way. Ron Paul is not sane. He's just insane in a different way than Obama or Romney.

Obama is the least farked up candidate we have for prez. For house and senate? we can start at Maine and get rid of whatsername that's completely batshiat, and work our way to California and get rid of Pelosi.

And, no, maybe I don't know anyone you would consider "Extremely left wing". However, I know several folks that are on the same level of legislating their views as the ultra-radical right wingers, and the positions they support, while not as controversial as abortion or gay marriage, are equally as damaging, such as those that would levy huge taxes and tariffs on businesses to cover the costs of environmental programs, or those that think we should arbitrarily ban certain types of cars or cars in general or other weird shiat that floated out of a haze of bong smoke.

We may not be able to go back to a time pre-big industry when the rugged individual could hold his own and be left to his own devices without inducing a massive fail, and some shifting towards a more socially responsible system is a good thing. However, there are limits, and balance helps maintain that by at least slowing down or blocking the most outrageously poorly thought out legislation.

Then again, we still have the problem of how to strip politicians of their greed and bottom-line me-first attitude where they tack on riders and all sorts of shiat that makes a good bill do horrible horrible things, but that's another discussion.

His numbers were a bit off. For the most part the sentiment was correct. I think people should stop getting angry when politicians tell the truth. Those who are dependent on the government for a paycheck are not likely to vote for smaller government. Why is this such a big story?

Kit Fister:PlatinumDragon: Kit Fister: FlashHarry: i've gotta say, this self-immolation by the GOP has been glorious to watch.

I'll state up front that I tend to be pretty centrist in my vies, though i like to think I lean conservative on some things.

That being said, why is it glorious? Why is it at all a good thing for a group that represents a different set of opinions to self destruct? Do we WANT to have any possible counterbalance to people going too far off the liberal end of the scale to be disorganized and in disarray so they cannot offer that balancing weight against the extreme leftists?

You don't like Romney or the extreme right-wing nutjobs. Neither do I. but I still think that some counter to extreme leftist crap is needed: If everyone in congress agreed with one ideal, and that ideal kept pushing further and further left, you'd have no one intervening to even slow the progress down.

Now, again, i hate the ultra-right as much as you seem to, and I hate the ultra left equally. But since common sense and reason is anathema to modern politics, the best we can do is to elect only a bare majority from one side or the other so that neither side can get too crazy with the bullshiat.

You seem to be saying both parties are equally negative. Is there a party you think we should vote for?

/you don't know extreme leftists//you should see our official opposition up here///and from where I sit, they're just moderately left

Both parties ARE equally negative in their own ways. Ideally, who "should" we vote for? The best candidate who is the most sane (this is why I'm grudgingly voting Obama this time around). If we could get enough people to get their heads out of their asses and on the move to get EC votes for a third party and that third party was sane, then I'd go that way. Ron Paul is not sane. He's just insane in a different way than Obama or Romney.

Obama is the least farked up candidate we have for prez. For house and senate? we can start at Maine and get rid of whatsername that's completely batshiat, and work our way to California and get rid of Pelosi.

And, no, maybe I don't know anyone you would consider "Extremely left wing". However, I know several folks that are on the same level of legislating their views as the ultra-radical right wingers, and the positions they support, while not as controversial as abortion or gay marriage, are equally as damaging, such as those that would levy huge taxes and tariffs on businesses to cover the costs of environmental programs, or those that think we should arbitrarily ban certain types of cars or cars in general or other weird shiat that floated out of a haze of bong smoke.

We may not be able to go back to a time pre-big industry when the rugged individual could hold his own and be left to his own devices without inducing a massive fail, and some shifting towards a more socially responsible system is a good thing. However, there are limits, and balance helps maintain that by at least slowing down or blocking the most outrageously poorly thought out legislation.

Then again, we still have the problem of how to strip politicians of their greed and bottom-line me-first attitude where they tack on riders and all sorts of shiat that makes a good bill do horrible horrible things, but that's another discussion.

I honestly think you folks should just start ignoring them. All of them. State legislatures, too.

ivan:ProfessorOhki: ivan: SineSwiper: /also, why is this on the main page and not in Politics?

That's been happening a lot.

It's the re-politisation of the main page.

There will be no escape.

As the date approaches the election, political news approaches mainstream news. It will then decrease for 2 years before slowly building again.

I don't remember this happening in '08 or '10. Am I misremembering?

Compared to those, this is one of the most contentious presidential elections in years, if ever. I'm nearly 60 and I cannot recall ever seeing not just an extremely contentious election year, but such behavior by the GOP.

Kit Fister:PlatinumDragon: Kit Fister: FlashHarry: i've gotta say, this self-immolation by the GOP has been glorious to watch.

I'll state up front that I tend to be pretty centrist in my vies, though i like to think I lean conservative on some things.

That being said, why is it glorious? Why is it at all a good thing for a group that represents a different set of opinions to self destruct? Do we WANT to have any possible counterbalance to people going too far off the liberal end of the scale to be disorganized and in disarray so they cannot offer that balancing weight against the extreme leftists?

You don't like Romney or the extreme right-wing nutjobs. Neither do I. but I still think that some counter to extreme leftist crap is needed: If everyone in congress agreed with one ideal, and that ideal kept pushing further and further left, you'd have no one intervening to even slow the progress down.

Now, again, i hate the ultra-right as much as you seem to, and I hate the ultra left equally. But since common sense and reason is anathema to modern politics, the best we can do is to elect only a bare majority from one side or the other so that neither side can get too crazy with the bullshiat.

You seem to be saying both parties are equally negative. Is there a party you think we should vote for?

/you don't know extreme leftists//you should see our official opposition up here///and from where I sit, they're just moderately left

Both parties ARE equally negative in their own ways. Ideally, who "should" we vote for? The best candidate who is the most sane (this is why I'm grudgingly voting Obama this time around). If we could get enough people to get their heads out of their asses and on the move to get EC votes for a third party and that third party was sane, then I'd go that way. Ron Paul is not sane. He's just insane in a different way than Obama or Romney.

Obama is the least farked up candidate we have for prez. For house and senate? we can start at Maine and get rid of ...

We need to change the system fundamentally, friend.

That won't happen with Rom-nay.

Obama is our only hope for the next four years vs. the Corporatocracy's advance...

What's funny about this is that I (and, I assume, a lot us born after the draft was disbanded) don't really have a problem with draft dodging. Hell, I can't say I wouldn't take any avenue possible to avoid getting drafted to fight in the Middle East. Man up and admit you are a pussy, Mitch. Some of us would be proud of you for it.

If said draft dodger is a pacifist, who doesn't want to send other people's kids off to die in wars, then he is morally consistent. If he is a warhawk, he's a hypocrite.

Bathia_Mapes:ivan: ProfessorOhki: ivan: SineSwiper: /also, why is this on the main page and not in Politics?

That's been happening a lot.

It's the re-politisation of the main page.

There will be no escape.

As the date approaches the election, political news approaches mainstream news. It will then decrease for 2 years before slowly building again.

I don't remember this happening in '08 or '10. Am I misremembering?

Compared to those, this is one of the most contentious presidential elections in years, if ever. I'm nearly 60 and I cannot recall ever seeing not just an extremely contentious election year, but such behavior by the GOP.

jso2897: Slu: What's funny about this is that I (and, I assume, a lot us born after the draft was disbanded) don't really have a problem with draft dodging.

[farm6.staticflickr.com image 640x367]

Actually, coming from a family where the last 6 generations have been involved in the military, not just here, but in Germany, and Japan, I kind of do have a problem with that.

In particular, that Romney was such an ardent supporter of the war, that he bravely went to France, while dunning those who protested the war. That's just a piece of the issue that I have with Romney though. His character is beyond reprehensible, but as a candidate, he is just a broken ox-cart tilting into market...

Bathia_Mapes:ivan: ProfessorOhki: ivan: SineSwiper: /also, why is this on the main page and not in Politics?

That's been happening a lot.

It's the re-politisation of the main page.

There will be no escape.

As the date approaches the election, political news approaches mainstream news. It will then decrease for 2 years before slowly building again.

I don't remember this happening in '08 or '10. Am I misremembering?

Compared to those, this is one of the most contentious presidential elections in years, if ever. I'm nearly 60 and I cannot recall ever seeing not just an extremely contentious election year, but such behavior by the GOP.

Also, '10 wasn't a presidential election year.

To clarify, I was talking only about heated political threads bleeding onto Fark's main page.

The Politics tab was hopping in '10, a dispiriting right-wing gloatfest, properly sequestered 5 tabs to the right of Main, with the ever-sunlighty world of the Geek tab to serve as an insulator (barring the occasional AGW flame wars).

ivan:Bathia_Mapes: ivan: ProfessorOhki: ivan: SineSwiper: /also, why is this on the main page and not in Politics?

That's been happening a lot.

It's the re-politisation of the main page.

There will be no escape.

As the date approaches the election, political news approaches mainstream news. It will then decrease for 2 years before slowly building again.

I don't remember this happening in '08 or '10. Am I misremembering?

Compared to those, this is one of the most contentious presidential elections in years, if ever. I'm nearly 60 and I cannot recall ever seeing not just an extremely contentious election year, but such behavior by the GOP.

Also, '10 wasn't a presidential election year.

To clarify, I was talking only about heated political threads bleeding onto Fark's main page.

The Politics tab was hopping in '10, a dispiriting right-wing gloatfest, properly sequestered 5 tabs to the right of Main, with the ever-sunlighty world of the Geek tab to serve as an insulator (barring the occasional AGW flame wars).

Indubitably:ivan: Bathia_Mapes: ivan: ProfessorOhki: ivan: SineSwiper: /also, why is this on the main page and not in Politics?

That's been happening a lot.

It's the re-politisation of the main page.

There will be no escape.

As the date approaches the election, political news approaches mainstream news. It will then decrease for 2 years before slowly building again.

I don't remember this happening in '08 or '10. Am I misremembering?

Compared to those, this is one of the most contentious presidential elections in years, if ever. I'm nearly 60 and I cannot recall ever seeing not just an extremely contentious election year, but such behavior by the GOP.

Also, '10 wasn't a presidential election year.

To clarify, I was talking only about heated political threads bleeding onto Fark's main page.

The Politics tab was hopping in '10, a dispiriting right-wing gloatfest, properly sequestered 5 tabs to the right of Main, with the ever-sunlighty world of the Geek tab to serve as an insulator (barring the occasional AGW flame wars).

Romney is simply not as competent as some make him out to be. Like Dubya, he wouldn't have been anything except for his daddy. Plus he believes in weird afterlife planets and wears magic farking underwear and shiat. I mean, when they were handing out religions, he was at the end of the line.

How dare Mitt say what the GOP believes!And they do. Best thing Mittens can do is just stand by it and call the 47% worthless leeches and watch the base go nuts in approval.Da da data da im loving it!This could sink the whole USS Republican

amquelbettamin:His numbers were a bit off. For the most part the sentiment was correct.

How much off is "a bit" off? What percentage of Americans perceive themselves as victims, think they are entitled to the government everything from cradle to grave, and cannot be convinced that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives? What is this base that the Democrats rely on, what percentage of Americans match that description, and what evidence do you have of that? The most generous number I can come up with would be 20%, the peak percent of Americans on food stamps (which occurred this summer but has thankfully fallen since). Are all those people who applied for food stamps diehard Obama voters who don't have the human dignity to not rely on the government?

What's funny about this is that I (and, I assume, a lot us born after the draft was disbanded) don't really have a problem with draft dodging. Hell, I can't say I wouldn't take any avenue possible to avoid getting drafted to fight in the Middle East. Man up and admit you are a pussy, Mitch. Some of us would be proud of you for it.

If said draft dodger is a pacifist, who doesn't want to send other people's kids off to die in wars, then he is morally consistent. If he is a warhawk, he's a hypocrite.

Yep. It's not about dodging the draft. It's about chickenhawk hypocrisy.

My uncle, who served in Vietnam, didn't mind Clinton dodging the draft because he was against the war. His beef with Romney is that he cheerled and protested in favor of the war, but suddenly remembered his religion forbade it when it came time for his number to get called up.

He has a problem with people wanting to bomb other countries, then asking for someone else to take their place in the line of fire.

newsflash: even the ones on "your team" are only telling you what they think you want to hear. they don't give a fark about you.

Yeah, fark it. NO ONE VOTE!

Wrong answer, man; must vote for Obama, as in, get up off of your ass and vote for the President of the United States of America, man, please?

Thank you.

P.S. And I mean vote for marriage rights, voting rights (as in wtf, no?), and for less obfuscation and pandering to interests that don't give a shiat about you or me (semi-narcissist-talking-and-walking, btw), i.e. Corporations and multi-gazillionaires. Entitlement works both ways, jackhats.

The fact that it's gotten to this point is rather sad in the global scope of this nation.

I hope I live to see the day when a formidable party is available to choose from. I'm tired of feeling so disenfranchised from two behemoth's conspiring to keep everyone else out of the running.

I'm tired of politicians in general and although they are the norm they don't need to be moving forward. First and foremost these are Governmental positions, not political positions. I'd like to see the majority of politics removed/ignored from these positions.

We really don't need political parties at all, we need people willing to govern for all of us in moral and ethical fashions.

PlatinumDragon:Kit Fister: PlatinumDragon: Kit Fister: FlashHarry: i've gotta say, this self-immolation by the GOP has been glorious to watch.

I'll state up front that I tend to be pretty centrist in my vies, though i like to think I lean conservative on some things.

That being said, why is it glorious? Why is it at all a good thing for a group that represents a different set of opinions to self destruct? Do we WANT to have any possible counterbalance to people going too far off the liberal end of the scale to be disorganized and in disarray so they cannot offer that balancing weight against the extreme leftists?

You don't like Romney or the extreme right-wing nutjobs. Neither do I. but I still think that some counter to extreme leftist crap is needed: If everyone in congress agreed with one ideal, and that ideal kept pushing further and further left, you'd have no one intervening to even slow the progress down.

Now, again, i hate the ultra-right as much as you seem to, and I hate the ultra left equally. But since common sense and reason is anathema to modern politics, the best we can do is to elect only a bare majority from one side or the other so that neither side can get too crazy with the bullshiat.

You seem to be saying both parties are equally negative. Is there a party you think we should vote for?

/you don't know extreme leftists//you should see our official opposition up here///and from where I sit, they're just moderately left

Both parties ARE equally negative in their own ways. Ideally, who "should" we vote for? The best candidate who is the most sane (this is why I'm grudgingly voting Obama this time around). If we could get enough people to get their heads out of their asses and on the move to get EC votes for a third party and that third party was sane, then I'd go that way. Ron Paul is not sane. He's just insane in a different way than Obama or Romney.

Obama is the least farked up candidate we have for prez. For house and senate? we can start at Maine and get rid of whatsername that's completely batshiat, and work our way to California and get rid of Pelosi.

And, no, maybe I don't know anyone you would consider "Extremely left wing". However, I know several folks that are on the same level of legislating their views as the ultra-radical right wingers, and the positions they support, while not as controversial as abortion or gay marriage, are equally as damaging, such as those that would levy huge taxes and tariffs on businesses to cover the costs of environmental programs, or those that think we should arbitrarily ban certain types of cars or cars in general or other weird shiat that floated out of a haze of bong smoke.

We may not be able to go back to a time pre-big industry when the rugged individual could hold his own and be left to his own devices without inducing a massive fail, and some shifting towards a more socially responsible system is a good thing. However, there are limits, and balance helps maintain that by at least slowing down or blocking the most outrageously poorly thought out legislation.

Then again, we still have the problem of how to strip politicians of their greed and bottom-line me-first attitude where they tack on riders and all sorts of shiat that makes a good bill do horrible horrible things, but that's another discussion.

I honestly think you folks should just start ignoring them. All of them. State legislatures, too.

I wish we'd do that up here.

God I wish. Don't get me wrong, it takes all kinds, and people probably wouldn't be as mindful of conservation, conditions of livestock, etc. if it weren't for some of the most radical leftists I can think of. They do some good.

This is why it saddens me to see us treat politics and the leadership of our country like a vicious brawl between two drunk frat boys with all of their drunk friends standing around cheering for their side to "get 'em" and "kill that motherfarker". We're adults, and largely who we choose controls the outcome in a lot of areas, so choosing wisely and having open discussion on topics that are important is a good thing. Figure out a consensus on the issues that matter the most or at least the ones that most need to be addressed, then vote the candidate that is stronger on those issues.

Anyway, I'm an idealist, and while I have certain hard line issues, I think when it comes to the running of our country, having both sides of the coin represented, or even more than two sides, is important in order to see the issue from as many viewpoints as possible to prevent kneejerk legislation because it sounded good but has glaring holes your particular ideals tended to overlook.